| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chase Burns | 23 | Majors | SP | 6 | 139.1 | 69.2 | 70 | 56 | 70 | 83.9 |
Total Value:
70
| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J.T. Ginn | 27 | Majors | LRP | 5 | 35.9 | 18.6 | 17.3 | 13.8 | 17.3 | 20.8 | ||
| Nick Kurtz | 23 | Majors | 1B | 5 | 108 | 53.2 | 54.8 | 43.8 | 54.8 | 65.7 |
Total Value:
72.1
Down vote for the A's. I'd rather have Kurtz than Burns.
This is a true baseball deal, not a prospect heavy deal full of question marks. It fills both team’s needs without leaving holes in either squad. Tyler Soderstrom easily slides to 1b with either Colby Thomas or Henry Bolte taking over LF for Soderstrom. Burns is the high upside arm the A’s really need and will shortly be called “Ace.” Kurtz is that missing power bat needed in the middle of the Reds lineup. The Reds starting pitching depth allows for the inclusion of Burns in this proposal. Ginn balances out the deal with his high worm-killing sinker. Deals that make it hard for each side to make are true baseball deals. This is one of them.
Except Soderstrom has been a far better fielder in LF than he ever was at 1B, while Thomas and especially Bolte have enough questions with making contact that you need to have a solid Plan B to cover in the OF. Chase Burns got shut down with a flexor strain last August and the risk with any hard thrower is already high. The reality is, the A's would be downgrading at two positions in the line-up to take on the riskier young player.
And yet you want to move Thomas in a deal for Singer. Why is it any young player coming to the A’s is risky, but any young A’s player going the other way is not? Kurtz fell in the ‘24 draft because of a nagging hamstring. I guess young players do get over nagging injuries.
I've never said Thomas without risk. In fact, I've done the opposite and pointed out his swing decisions as a red flag. Whether the Reds want to gamble on his risk/reward in exchange for 1 year of Singer is their choice. Kurtz/Burns is a much bigger gamble for the A's, one I think they should avoid because your suggested backfill scenario with Soderstrom and Thomas only adds to the risk profile.
Baseball Savant grades Soderstrom better than Kurtz at 1B, -5 vs. -6 OAA. But, hey we are splitting hairs. I have never seen where you okayed any deal involving the A's unless you proposed it. Let's face it ALL deals have risks. You are just to risk adverse.
That's untrue... I never approve the deals I propose. Baseball Savant also rated Soderstrom as +5 OAA in LF, switching him back to 1B is a 10 run flip with his defense. Your plan to replace Kurtz with Soderstrom makes Soderstrom a worse player; making Thomas the new LF most likely weakens the offensive production. It's not risk adverse to say I don't want to weaken two offensive positions to add to the starting rotation.